Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 337 posts

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#291

Post by roca »

icebraining wrote: post #269
atoav wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your problem as a society is the spread of extremist content and ideology (in parts because social media algorithms reward everything that provokes reactions), than "doing things" to avoid specifically extremist content linked to terrorists might not be a bad start? Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? I am not sure why we should treat rightwing terrorists different. Both…

> Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? No.

Not the US government, but Twitter, Youtube and Facebook do have programs to block ISIS propaganda for example.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#292

Post by roca »

ufmace wrote: post #225
krapp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works…

Start a slippery slope argument? We're way beyond started. We already have people actively seeking to tie the most mild institutions around to the most vile opinions around any way they possibly can, so that they can ban and silence anyone they disagree with. It's already happening, and only a sincere commitment to freedom of expression for all, even those we disagree with, can stop it. Have you read the Christchurch…

Why would you believe anything in that manifesto?

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#293

Post by roca »

stcredzero wrote: post #116
standardUser wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't accept that the internet has enabled people with obscure and extreme views to better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes?

better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes? It's allowed everyone to do that. That's why we have more acrimony today. Allow a level playing field, and the violent stupid losers will lose. Start taking away people's rights, and you've only given those toxic people a pretext. (Which is exactly what the Christchurch shooter was trying to do.)

Are the stupid flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers losing? No, they're doing much better than they ever were before, thanks to Internet platforms.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#294

Post by eadmund »

roca wrote: post #286
Rapzid wrote: post #234

It's amazing to me how political this is and how oblivious to that fact a large portion of the NZ population is. This horrible act happened on the current governments watch. I've seen more outrage and effort from the government on the spreading of the video and manifesto than introspection into how this slipped through in the first place. I suppose in a country where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defense…

NZers have observed the USA's experiment with reducing violent crime by flooding the nation with guns, and there is very strong support across the political spectrum for trying something else: restricting access to the most dangerous guns, and deplatforming murder advocates. It is not some authoritarian ploy.

> It is not some authoritarian ploy.

Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, restricting access to guns and free speech is an authoritarian play: it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#295

Post by makomk »

roca wrote: post #289
55555 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of censoring his manifesto is strange to me. You'd think people would just want to argue the points brought up in his manifesto on their merits and win mindshare that way.

How well is that working against the flat-earth and anti-vax communities?

Well, a good chunk of the US anti-vax movement seems to be ultra-Orthodox Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/nyregion/measles-vaccine-... Their religous beliefs don't permit them to have unfettered Internet access because it'd expose them to corrupting ideas (like, say, the idea that vaccines are safe).

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#296

Post by roca »

eadmund wrote: post #294
roca wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZers have observed the USA's experiment with reducing violent crime by flooding the nation with guns, and there is very strong support across the political spectrum for trying something else: restricting access to the most dangerous guns, and deplatforming murder advocates. It is not some authoritarian ploy.

> It is not some authoritarian ploy. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, restricting access to guns and free speech is an authoritarian play: it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

All laws "use the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good".

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#297

Post by sorokod »

qball wrote: post #150
CodiePetersen wrote: post #143

This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…

>Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. The interesting thing is that this really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Consider weapons treaties, like the UN ones banning the use of land mines and cluster munitions. The only countries that have signed them either don't have any reason to use them, or are allied with a nation that hasn't signed that treaty. This is much the same…

"You can't outcompete a free nation."

This may or may not be true, but a free nation can collapse on itself. The Weimar republic and modern day Hungary and Turkey are just a few examples.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#298

Post by roca »

makomk wrote: post #295
roca wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well is that working against the flat-earth and anti-vax communities?

Well, a good chunk of the US anti-vax movement seems to be ultra-Orthodox Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/nyregion/measles-vaccine-... Their religous beliefs don't permit them to have unfettered Internet access because it'd expose them to corrupting ideas (like, say, the idea that vaccines are safe).

And yet more than a good chunk of the anti-vax movement worldwide has unfettered Internet access. Ultra-orthodox Jews certainly aren't a factor here in New Zealand.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#299

Post by yc12340 »

roca wrote: post #282
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement. Before the Internet, the average person simply would not have come into contact with material promoting these ideas.

> I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement

What growth are you talking about? Is there an actual research, that indicates that number of flat-earthers have grown compared to previous decades?

And why do you think, that there is a relationships between flat-earth nuts and social media, as opposed to, say, HIV, cancer and other diseases and social media? Social media made you more aware about flat-earthers than before, but it didn't turn you into one.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#300

Post by dredds »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #277

Aren't they missing the point here? The problem isn't that this guy streamed what he was doing on facebook, it's the fact that he did it in the first place? As these large hosts move more and more away from mere platforms to content curators it does make a lot of sense that they'd also be more responsible for what they curate, but at the same time, it seems like this responsibility will ultimately leak back into the…

> The problem isn't that this guy streamed what he was doing on facebook, it's the fact that he did it in the first place?

The Las Vegas shooter we're told had no motive, but there's a public sense that each massacre is trying to "out do" a previous kill count. With Facebook being the go to place when one occurs, it's instant fame and notoriety for the perpetrator. For this reason our government and media took the immediate response of "de-naming" the killer, but with instant global online platforms this is after the horse has bolted. This approach of involving platforms directly is to neuter the draw of instant notoriety. To remove fame (or widespread publicity if there is an agenda) from being another contributing factor.

Post reply on HN